Nostr Web Client

Yeah, there's a bunch of misconceptions in this article. But a good heuristic for you might be that if someone is LITERALLY more invested in something than you, they might understand it better than you think.

The semantic "iT dOeSn'T sAy CaPiTaL in ThE wHiTe PaPeR?!?" argument is just a fundamental misunderstanding of money, capital goods, currency and financial systems.

Assets and capital are what determines final settlement. Is bitcoin settlement, final settlement? Yes? Then it's capital. Is lightning utilized as a medium for timely exchange to ease the use of the underlying asset? Yes? Then it's currency. Is there a promise to repay in exchange for interest or equity? Then it's credit. This is how money works.

Frank Corva 1y ago

So are you making the same argument I did in the piece, which is that Bitcoin is both money and capital?

And is your argument that people who have the most Bitcoin get to control the narrative around the asset? If so, that seems completely antithetical to Bitcoin

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

JackTheMimic 1y ago

You said it is currency, it is not, definitionally. Also this isn't a narrative. It is a fact based observation. Bitcoin literally cannot handle the financial transaction load unless abstracted to another layer. Money is an asset and capital. There's not distinction in kind between the two.

Frank Corva 1y ago

Definitionally, it is (as per the Whitepaper). In your opinion, it’s not. And that’s fine.

Because the money is used to transact on a second layer doesn’t mean it doesn’t benefit from the security of the base layer in very important ways.

I don’t know what point you’re trying to make with the last two sentences.

If you’d like, pitch a rebuttal piece to my piece to Bitcoin Magazine. We welcome disagreement.

JackTheMimic 1y ago

Sure, I will try to write one up this weekend. I will look into the submission process soon to see how welcome to descent BM is.